Sealed-cover promotion procedure cannot be invoked solely on an FIR or pending investigation.

The applicant, an Indian Ordnance Factories Service officer serving as Deputy General Manager, was due for promotion to Joint General Manager (JAG) with effect from 1 January 2026.

An FIR was registered against him on 3 September 2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, but no departmental disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him.

The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 29 December 2025 and considered the applicant’s case, placing him at Serial No. 8 in its assessment list; however, his recommendation was kept in a sealed cover because investigation pursuant to the FIR was pending.

Ninety-nine other officers were promoted by order dated 31 December 2025, but the applicant was not included.

The police charge-sheet was filed subsequently on 15/16 February 2026, after the DPC meeting.

The applicant challenged the sealed-cover procedure and sought opening of the cover and promotion with consequential benefits.

Whether mere registration of an FIR and pendency of a criminal investigation, without filing of a criminal charge-sheet or initiation of departmental proceedings, justified applying the sealed-cover procedure to the applicant’s promotion case?

Whether the subsequent filing of the police charge-sheet on 15/16 February 2026 could retrospectively validate the sealed-cover decision taken on 29 December 2025?

Whether the applicant was entitled to opening of the sealed cover and consequential promotion if found fit by the DPC?

The Tribunal applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14 September 1992, under which the sealed-cover procedure may be used where the government servant is under suspension, where a departmental charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings are pending, or where prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.

Relying principally on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, the Tribunal held that disciplinary or criminal proceedings commence, for purposes of the sealed-cover procedure, only upon issuance of a charge memorandum in departmental proceedings or filing of a criminal charge-sheet before the competent court; mere pendency of a preliminary investigation is insufficient.

The Tribunal also relied on Dineshwar Shukla v. State of U.P., 2018 (1) ADJ 602 (DB)(LB) and Yogendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P., 2023 (2) ESC 629 (All.), which reaffirmed that subsequent issuance of a charge-sheet cannot retrospectively justify withholding promotion where no proceedings were pending on the date of the DPC.

On 29 December 2025, the date of the DPC, the applicant was neither under suspension nor facing departmental proceedings, and no departmental charge memorandum or criminal charge-sheet had been issued or filed.

The respondents relied only on the registration of the FIR and the pending investigation.

Applying K.V. Jankiraman, the Tribunal held that an investigation preceding the filing of a criminal charge-sheet does not constitute pending criminal prosecution for purposes of the sealed-cover procedure.

Since the police charge-sheet was filed only on 15/16 February 2026, it was a subsequent event and could not retrospectively cure the illegality in keeping the applicant’s DPC recommendation sealed on 29 December 2025.

The applicant had in any event been assessed by the DPC and placed at Serial No. 8, making the respondents’ reliance solely on the pending investigation legally unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to open the sealed cover containing the DPC recommendation dated 29 December 2025/31 December 2025 and take consequential action in accordance with law.

If the applicant was found fit for promotion, he was to be promoted as JAG from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted, with consequential benefits including pay fixation and seniority, subject to the applicable rules.

The exercise was directed to be completed within twelve weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order; no order was made as to costs.